Báo cáo y học: " Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and metaanalysis" pdf

REVIEW Open Access Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta- analysis Sheree Nix, Michelle Smith * , Bill Vicenzino Abstract Background: Hallux valgus (HV) is a foot deformity commonly seen in medical practice, often accompanied by significant functional disability and foot pain. Despite frequent mention in a diverse body of literature, a precise estimate of the prevalence of HV is difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate prevalence of HV in the overall population and evaluate the influence of age and gender. Methods: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included papers were searched to June 2009 for papers on HV prevalence without language restriction. MeSH terms and keywords were used relating to HV or bunions, prevalence and various synonyms. Included studies were surveys reporting original data for prevalence of HV or bunions in healthy populations of any age group. Surveys reporting prevalence data grouped with other foot deformities and in specific disease groups (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes) were excluded. Two independent investigators quality rated all included papers on the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument. Data on raw prevalence, population studied and methodology were extracted. Prevalence proportions and the standard error were calculated, and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Results: A total of 78 papers reporting results of 76 surveys (total 496,957 participants) were included and grouped by study population for me ta-analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates for HV were 23% in adults aged 18-65 years (CI: 16.3 to 29.6) and 35.7% in elderly people aged over 65 years (CI: 29.5 to 42.0). Prevalence increased with age and was higher in females [30% (CI: 22 to 38)] compared to males [13% (CI: 9 to 17)]. Potential sources of bias were sampling method, study quality and method of HV diagnosis. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the wide variation in estimates, it is evident that HV is prevalent; more so in females and with increasing age. Methodological quality issues need to be addressed in interpreting reports in the literature and in future research. Background Hallux valgus (HV) is one of th e most common chronic foot complaints presenting to foot and ankle specialists [1], occurring when the hallux deviates laterally towards the other toes, and the f irst metatarsal head becomes prominent medially [2]. As well as being a major contri- butor to the costs for forefoot surgery, HV has been linked to functional disability, including foot pain [3], impaired gait patterns [4], poor balance [ 5], and falls in older adults [6,7]. Although HV has g ained substantial attention in both historic and recent literature, several authors have high- lighted the fact that a true prevalence estimate for HV is difficult to ascertain [8,9]. A wide range of prevalence estimates for HV has been presented in a m ultitude of independent reports. National health surveys in the Uni- ted States have reported a prevalence of 0.9% across all age groups [10], while a more recent survey in t he UK reported a prevalen ce of 28.4% in adults [9]. Research conducted in elderly populations has indicated preva- lence rates as high as 74% [11]. Individua l studies have reported that HV is more common in female and elderly individuals [9,12]; however, there has been no synthesis of the literature to date or synopsis derived. * Correspondence: m.smith5@uq.edu.au Division of Physiotherapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 JOURNAL OF FOOT AND ANKLE RESEARCH © 2010 Nix et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use , distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Due to the lack of firm epide miological data relating to HV, it is difficult to estimate the impact that this condition has on the population; thus, in order to estab- lish the need for future research, a better understanding of HV prevalence is warranted. To date there has been no published systematic review investigating the preva- lence of HV and the influence of age and gender. There- fore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine HV prevalence in the overall population and in age and gender subgroups. Methods Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched by the first author for all years available up to June 2009 to identify all publications discussing HV prevalence. Broad MeSH terms and keywords were used combining the following: the condition of interest (e.g. bunion or hallux valgus or great toe deformity or foot deformity or foot problem) and epidemiological terms (e. g. questionnaire or survey or prevalence or incidence). For the full search syntax with truncation used for each data- base refer to Additional file 1 (Additiona l file 1.xls). Referen ce lists of all included papers were hand-searched to identify grey literature (i.e. government publications andtheses),articlesthatweretoooldtobeindexedon electronic databases, and articles without abstracts that were missed by the initial search strategy. Study selection All titles and abstracts retrieved by the above search strategy were scanned by the fir st author using an initial screening question: Does the article appear to discuss prevalence of hallux valgus or bunions? The full text was sourced if required, and the same author undertook detailed eligibility assessment using pre-determined cri- teria based on HV diagnosis (including both clinically diagno sed HV and self-reported bunions), study design, and reports of original quantitative data for HV preva- lence (Figure 1). Surveys of specific disease groups (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes), intervention studies, and studies where prevalence data was grouped with other foot deformities were excluded. As this review was not restricted to the English language, translations were sourced for articles written in German, Russian, Spanish, Serbian, Turkish, and Chinese. Quality assessment Papers wer e scored for quality by two ind ependent assessors using the Epidemiological Appraisal Instru- ment (EAI) [13], which has been shown to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing observational studies. Items not applicable to cross-sectional study designs were removed, resulting in a 17-item scale. Title, author and journal details were removed to de-identify articles prior to rating. Disagreements between the two assessors were resolved by consultation with a third party. Each item was scored as either “ Yes” (score = 2), “Partial” (score = 1), “ No” (score = 0), “Unable to dete rmine” (score = 0), or “Not Applicable” (item w as removed from scoring). Detailed criteria to determine each response were modi- fied from the original instrument and agreed upon by all assessors prior to rating.Theoverallscorewas derived as an average of the scores f or all 17 items (range 0-2). Studies were then classified as either “high” or “low” quality using the median quality score (0.91). Data extraction Data extraction was performed b y the first author, and queries discussed and resolved by all authors in regular meetings. Prevalence data were extracted for each study population and converted to raw counts of individuals with HV. Raw prevalence data for age and gender sub- groups was also extracted separately wherever possible, as previously published literature has su ggested that HV prevalence varies with these factors [9]. Authors were contacted where additional information was required. Statistical methods The summary statistic for each study or subgroup was a prevalence proportion, calculated as the ratio of the number of individuals with HV to the sample size of that study or subgroup. The standard error for each pre- valence estimate was then calcu lated . Met a-ana lysis was performed to obtain pooled prevalence estimates using a random effects model, which gives an average estimate across studies weighted by sample size. A Chi- squared test was used to determine heterogeneity across studies. Due to the diversity of study populations, prevalence estimates were only pooled between studies with similar age and gender characteristics. For the purposes of this age subgroup analysis, we categorised age by three broad categories: juvenile (< 18 years), adult (18-65 years), and elderly (> 65 years). Studies in which the sample did not exactly fall within one of these age cate- gories were categorised independently by each author, and if a consensus could not be reached data were excluded from the age subgroup analysis. The subgroup (24 studies) that reported HV preva- lence for the overall populati on (i.e. all ages included in their sample, and a prevale nce estimate given that was not split by gender or age) was further analysed for potential s ources of bias. Studies were grouped accord- ing to sampling method, definition of HV, and study quality to determine if these factors influenced preva- lence esti mates. Influence of sample size and publication year were investigated by funnel plots. All analyses were performed using Stata version 10 [14]. Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 2 of 9 Results Database search The database search yielded a total of 8456 hi ts, from which 1693 were removed as duplicates. The remaining 6763 citations were scanned by title and abstract, and 377 potentially relevant records were identified. Fifty- seven of these satisfied all eligibility criteria and gave original data for HV prevalence. Hand-searching of reference lists yielded another 2 11 potentially relevant titles, of which 21 met all eligibility criteria and were included in the review. A total of 78 papers were included and underwent quality assessment (Figure 1). Papers that reported on the same sample as a previously published study (n = 7) were only included once in the analysis. Four papers reported data from more than one sample population; thus, data were extracted from a total of 76 studies (total 496,957 participants). One author was contacted to provide clarification that multi- ple papers reported data from the same sample. Another author who only provided graphical data for age and gender subgroups was also contacted during data extraction. Study characteristics Selected characteristics of all studies included in the review can be found in Additional file 2 (Additional file 2.xls). Study c haracteristics varied widely in terms of study population and methodology. Twenty-eight studies Database search 6763 Unique records identified 5560 Medline 421 Embase 782 CINAHL Titles and abstracts screened with the following question: "Does the article appear to discuss prevalence of HV or bunions?" 6386 Excluded based on the following criteria: No relation to HV, foot deformities, or prevalence Descriptions of operative or non-operative interventions Studies relating to specific disease groups (RhA, leprosy, diabetes, neuromuscular disorders) Discussions of traumatic injury to the first toe joint Studies evaluating reliability or validity of measurement Studies evaluating reliability or validity of measurement scales 377 retrieved for detailed evaluation 295 Full-text 82 Abstract only Reference list searches 211 Records identified 178 Full-text 588 reviewed against inclusion criteria 33 Abstract only 506 Excluded 311 Did not discuss HV prevalence in healthy population 136 Excluded on the basis of study design (literature reviews, case studies, clinical opinion) 45 No specific diagnosis of HV or self-reported bunions 14 No original quantitative data 14 No original quantitative data 78 Articles included in the review 4 Unable to source from any library Figure 1 Selection process for inclusion of articles in the review. Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 3 of 9 (37%) were conducted in the USA, 21 ( 28%) in the UK, 8(10%)inAustralia,and4(5%)inGermany,withthe remaining 15 studies (20%) conducted in other regions. More than half of studies ( 66%) conducted a clinical examination, while others utilised interviews (13%) or questionnaires (7%) to gather self-report data. Fifteen studies (20%) were published after the year 2000, and 19 studies (25%) were published before 1970. Sample sizes varied widely, with the smallest sample reported being 30 individuals [15], and the largest sample being 197,422 individuals surveyed in a US National Health Survey [16]. Quality assessment Overall agreement for rating of quality of r eporting and methodology between the two assessors was 87%. The results from the quality assessment can be found in Additional file 3 (Additional file 3.xls). The quality assessment revealed that only 18 studies (24% ) used a random sampling method, only 39% of studies ade- quately described their sampling frame, and less than half of studies (47%) provided a simple description o f study participant characteristics, such as age and gender. Despite the importance of a clear definition of HV, only twelve studies (16%) defined HV according to angular criteria. Reliability and validity of measurement methods were described in only five (7%) and four (5%) studies, respectively. Meta-analysis Studies included in the meta-analysis, grouped by age of study population, are listed in Additional file 4 (Addi- tional file 4.xls). Meta-analysis by age subgroups revealed a prevalence of 23% (CI: 16.3 to 29.6) in adults aged 18-65 years (15 studies), and HV prevalence clearly increased with age (Table 1). Studies that reported HV prevalence by gender consistently showed a higher pre- valence of HV in females [30% (CI: 22 to 38)] (23 stu- dies) compared to males [13% (CI: 9 to 17)] (22 studies) (Figure 2). However, there was a high degree of hetero- geneity between studies in all subgroups (c 2 156.55 to 3213.78; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 95.8% to 99.6%). Finally, prevalence estimates were influenced by method of HV diagnosis (self-report or clinically diagnosed), sampling methods (random, convenience, or biased) and study quality. Studies using self-report data and random sampling methods, as well as those with high quality scores on the EAI reported lower prevalence estimates. There w as no consistent t rend apparent with regard to sample size or publication year (Figure 3). Discussion This review revealed a wide variation in HV prevalence estimates, and meta-analysis showed that systematic differences in these estimates were related t o a number of factors, including method of HV diagnosis, gender, age, study quality, and sampling method. The finding that substantial differences may be related to the method of HV diagnosis (i.e. self-report or clinical examination) (Figure 3), confirms the results of a num- ber of studies that have shown lower prevalence rates with the self-report methods commonly used in large- scale surveys when directly compared to clinical exami- nation [17-22]. Prevalence of HV may therefore be under-reported in epidemiological surveys that rely on self-report data. Systematic differences according to gender and age were clearly demonstrated by our meta-analysis. The pooled estimate of HV prevalence in females (30%) wa s 2.3 times greater than the estimate for males (13%). This supports the observation of several individual reports that HV is more prevalent in females. For example, a recent large-scale epidemiological study of people o lder than 30 years reported a prevalence of 38% in women compared to 21% in men [9], and another recent survey of older adults reported a prevalence of 58% in women and 25% in men [12]. The trend for an increase in HV prevalence with age was also demonstrated by our data: 7.8% in juveniles (16 studies, n = 73,030), 23% in adults aged 18-65 years (15 studies, n = 23, 790) and 35.7% in the elderly (37 studies, n = 16,001) (Table 1). Variations in reported prevalence of HV in previous literature may also be explained by differences in study quality and methodological issues, parti cularly sampling bias (Figure 3). We identified a trend for higher preva- lence estimates from studies with low quality scores on the EAI (score <0.91). Higher prevalen ce estimates were also reported by studies using convenience samples [23-29] or biased samples of people seeking treatment for foot problems [15,30,31], in comparison to those Table 1 Pooled random effects estimates for HV prevalence by age subgroup expressed as % (95% CI) Overall Male Female Juvenile Pooled prevalence estimate 7.8 (6.2 to 9.5) 5.7 (3.7 to 7.6) 15.0 (7.7 to 22.3) Number of studies 16 5 6 Adult Pooled prevalence estimate 23.0 (16.3 to 29.6) 8.5 (1.4 to 15.6) 26.3 (16.5 to 36.2) Number of studies 15 8 9 Elderly Pooled prevalence estimate 35.7 (29.5 to 42.0) 16.0 (10.6 to 21.3) 36.0 (26.9 to 45.1) Number of studies 37 16 16 Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 4 of 9 Black (1987) Brodie (1988) Cartwright (1986) Chaiwanichsiri (2009) Clarke (1969a) Craigmile (1953a) Crawford (1995) Dawson (2002) FEMALE Dawson (2002) Dunn (2004) Elton (1986) Frey (1993) Garrow (2004) Helfand (1969) a Helfand (1969) a Horvath (1980) Huang (2006) Hung (1985) Leveille (1998) Maclennan (1966) Merrill (1967) Muehleman (1997) Munro (1998) Roddy (2008) Black (1987) Brodie (1988) MALE Brodie (1988) Cartwright (1986) Chaiwanichsiri (2009) Clarke (1969a) Craigmile (1953a) Crawford et al (1995) Dunn et al (2004) Elton (1986) Garrow (2004) Harris (1947) () Helfand (1969) a Helfand (1969) a Horvath (1980) Huang (2006) Hung (1985) Maclennan (1966) Merrill (1967) Muehleman (1997) Munro (1998) Rodd (2008) 0 20 40 60 80 Roddy (2008) Schnitzer (1974) Pooled estimate female (30%) Pooled estimate male (13%) HV Prevalence (%) POOLED Figure 2 HV prevalence estimates by gender. Diamonds indicate prevalence e stimates by male (black diamonds) and female (white diamonds) subgroups, with bars representing 95% confidence intervals. a Study reported more than one prevalence estimate based on different diagnostic methods in the same sample population (self-reported vs. clinically diagnosed HV). Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 5 of 9 studies that used random sampling from the general population [10,16,32-39]. Potential bias may be intro- duce d by lower quality studies with sampling bias; how- ever, as discussed previously, this trend may also be related to the fact that these “low” quality studies were mostly clinical st udies that diagnosed HV rather than relying on self-report data. Our f indings should be considered in light of several limitations in the available literature concerning HV. One major concern is the lack of a clearly stated definition of HV in the majority of studies reviewed. Even in those studies where HV was observed on c lini- cal examination, very few described a quantifiable method of measuring HV. Only 16% of studies in our review defined a diagnosis of HV using angular crite ria measured clinically or on x-ray. A few more recent stu- dies used the Manchester Scale, a categorical scale based on standardised photographs with four gradings to classify HV severity [40-43]. Of those studies that col- lected self-reported prevalence data via interview or 60 50 40 30 e HV (%) HV Prevalence by Sample Size HV (%) 60 50 40 30 HV Prevalence by Publication Year 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000 30 20 10 0 Prevalence Prevalence 30 20 10 0 Sample Size (N) 1 10 100 1000 10,000 100 , 000 1,000, 000 Publication Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 50 45 Study Quality Sampling method Definition HV nce HV (%) 40 35 30 25 Prevalen 25 20 15 10 High (10 studies) Low (14 studies) Random (10 studies) Convenience/ Biased (14 studies) Self-reported (7 studies) Clinically diagnosed (17 studies) 5 0 Figure 3 Potential sources of bias in reported HV prevalence in the overall population (based on 24 studies). Clear diamonds indicate pooled random effects estimate by subgroup; error bars represent 95% confidence intervals; dotted line represents an overall pooled estimate, although there was significant heterogeneity across the 24 studies. Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 6 of 9 questionnaire, only a few provided participants with a definition or diagram of HV [9,35,44]. In addition, there is confusion surrounding the interchangeable use of t he terms “bunion” and “hallux valgus. ” In this review both terms were considered to repr esent HV; however, the term “bunion” strictly refers to the medial bursitis that may develop over the first metatarsal head as a result of irritation [1]. Most included studies that used self-report data asked subjects about “ bunions"; undoubtedly, a poor understanding of the terms used in a questionnaire or interview will result in inaccurate self-report data. Finally, there has been poor reporting of the r eliability and validity of methods used to diagnose HV. Clearly, for accurate prevalenc e data to be collected and com- pared across different populations a consistent definition of HV and validated measurements should be employed. Another consideration for our meta-analysis was the statistically significant degree of heterogeneity or varia- tion across studies. Wide variat ions in sample popula- tions meant that much of the retrieved data could not be pooled; however, pooling of estimates across age and gender subgroups was considered to be an important synopsis of the available literature pertaining to HV. Our subgroup meta-analysis was limited by the fact that not all studies reported HV prevalence by gender or age. Those studies that did reportprevalencebyageuseda range of different age groupings, which rendered impos- sible further sub grouping the 18-65 years age bracket. Our analysis of potential sources of bias (Figure 3) was conducted to at tempt to explain this variation between studies and highlight possible sources of heterogeneity. Finally, insufficient data was available to examine the influence or adjust for other factors such as ethnicity, geographic location, shoe wearing or socioeconomic sta- tus on HV prevalence. Details of sampling frame and sample characteristics were also often poorly reported, as revealed by our quality assessment (Additional file 3 Additional File 3.xls). The vast majority of st udies did not report on the presence of symptoms (i.e. pain or disability) related to HV, and therefore this factor could not be investigated by our review. Having highlighted the limitations of the currently available epidemiological data relating to HV, further large-scale epidemiological studies are clearly warranted. Future studies should utilise rigorous methods, includ- ing random sampling from the general p opulation and from different ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Vali- dated t ools should be used to diagnose HV, and results should be reported by gender and age as these factors are known to be associated with HV prevalence. Infor- mation relating to the presence of symptomatic versus asymptomatic HV would also be of great benefit in determining the impact of HV on the general popula- tion. Clear reporting of all these factors in future studies will provide an evidence base that will enhance our understanding of the impact of HV on the population and the health care system, and subsequently assist with the delivery of appropriate treatment. Due to its preva- lence in the aging population, further research should focus on the impact of HV on mobility and quality of life in the elderly. Conclusions This meta-analysis reveals a high prevalence of HV in the overall population and highlights the wide variation in prevalence estimates across studies. Our results also support the commonly held view that HV is more pre- valent in women and the elderly. This study has high- lighted the issues that make i t difficult to provide a true estimate of HV prevalence in the general population, with recommendations for future research. Additional material Additional file 1: Search syntax used for electronic databases. Additional file 2: Selected characteristics of papers included in systematic review [4,5,9-11,15-38,37-40,42-87]. Additional file 3: Results from quality assessment. Additional file 4: Studies included in meta-analysis, grouped by age of study population. Acknowledgements Funding/Support: SN is currently supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship at The University of Queensland, and funding for the cost of language translation was provided by the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland. Additional Contributions: We thank Dr Asad Khan, PhD (School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland) for his statistical advice in this meta-analysis. Authors’ contributions All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of this study. SN carried out literature searches, quality assessments, data extraction and statistical analysis and was responsible for drafting of the manuscript. MS also carried out quality assessments. MS and BV were responsible for supervision, including interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Received: 3 June 2010 Accepted: 27 September 2010 Published: 27 September 2010 References 1. Vanore JV, Christensen JC, Kravitz SR, Schuberth JM, Thomas JL, Weil LS, Zlotoff HJ, Couture SD: Diagnosis and treatment of First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Disorders. Section 1: Hallux valgus. J Foot Ankle Surg 2003, 42:112-123. 2. Mann RA, Coughlin MJ: Adult Hallux Valgus. In Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. Edited by: Coughlin MJ, Mann RA. St. Louis: Mosby; , 7 1999:1:150-175. 3. Benvenuti F, Ferrucci L, Guralnik JM, Gangemi S, Baroni A: Foot pain and disability in older persons: an epidemiologic survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995, 43:479-484. Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 7 of 9 4. Menz HB, Lord SR: Gait instability in older people with hallux valgus. Foot Ankle 2005, 26:483-489. 5. Menz HB, Lord SR: The contribution of foot problems to mobility impairment and falls in community-dwelling older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001, 49:1651-1656. 6. Koski K, Luukinen H, Laippala P, Kivela SL: Physiological factors and medications as predictors of injurious falls by elderly people: a prospective population-based study. Age Ageing 1996, 25:29-38. 7. Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF: Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med 1988, 319:1701-1707. 8. Menz HB, Munteanu SE: Radiographic validation of the Manchester scale for the classification of hallux valgus deformity. Rheumatology 2005, 44:1061-1066. 9. Roddy E, Zhang W, Doherty M: Prevalence and associations of hallux valgus in a primary care population. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 59:857-862. 10. Adams PF, Hendershot GE, Marano MA: Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1996. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 1999, 1-203. 11. Menz HB, Lord SR: Foot pain impairs balance and functional ability in community-dwelling older people. JAmPodiatrMedAssoc2001, 91:222-229. 12. Nguyen USDT, Hillstrom HJ, Li W, Dufour AB, Kiel DP, Procter-Gray E, Gagnon MM, Hannan MT: Factors associated with hallux valgus in a population-based study of older women and men: the MOBILIZE Boston Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010, 18:41-46. 13. Genaidy AM, Lemasters GK, Lockey J, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, Dunning K: An epidemiological appraisal instrument - a tool for evaluation of epidemiological studies. Ergonomics 2007, 50:920-960. 14. StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10 College Station, TX: StataCorp LP 2007. 15. Robbins JM, Roth LS, Villanueva MC: “Stand down for the homeless”. Podiatric screening of a homeless population in Cleveland. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1996, 86:275-279. 16. Wilder MH: Prevalence of chronic skin and musculoskeletal conditions, United States, 1969. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 1980, 1-65. 17. Cartwright A, Henderson G: More Trouble with Feet: A Survey of the Foot Problems and Chiropody Needs of the Elderly London: HMSO Publications Centre 1986. 18. Helfand AE: A study in podogeriatrics: a pilot study of foot problems in the aged and chronically ill. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1963, 53:655-662. 19. Helfand AE: The foot of South Mountain: a foot health survey of the residents of a state geriatric institution. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1969, 59:133-139. 20. Helfand AE: Foot problems in older patients: a focused podogeriatric assessment study in ambulatory care. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2004, 94:293-304. 21. Helfand AE, Cooke HL, Walinsky MD, Demp PH: Foot problems associated with older patients. A focused podogeriatric study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1998, 88:237-241. 22. Helfand AE, Cooke HL, Walinsky MD, Demp PH, Snyder Phillips B: Foot pain and disability in older persons. Pilot study in assessment and education. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1996, 86:93-98. 23. Craigmile DA: Incidence, origin, and prevention of certain foot defects. Br Med J 1953, 2:749-752. 24. Fridland MO, Tverdynin MS: Role of osteoarthrosis in the development of hallux valgus. Ortop Travmatol Protez 1960, 21:16-20. 25. Hughes J, Clark P, Klenerman L: The importance of the toes in walking. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990, 72:245-251. 26. Mays SA: Paleopathological study of hallux valgus. Am J Epidemiol 2005, 126:139-149. 27. Morris JB, Brash LF, Hird MD: Chiropodial survey of geriatric and psychiatric hospital in-patients–Angus District. Health Bull (Edinb) 1978, 36:241-250. 28. Muehleman C, Bareither D, Huch K, Cole AA, Kuettner KE: Prevalence of degenerative morphological changes in the joints of the lower extremity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1997, 5:23-37. 29. Sim-Fook LAM, Hodgson AR: A Comparison of Foot Forms Among the Non-Shoe and Shoe-Wearing Chinese Population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1958, 40:1058-1062. 30. Durman DC: Metatarsus primus varus and hallux valgus. AMA Arch Surg 1957, 74:128-135. 31. Jones RO, Christenson CJ, Lednar WM: Podiatric utilization referral patterns at an Army medical center. Mil Med 1992, 157:7-11. 32. Adams PF, Benson V: Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 1991, 1-212. 33. Brodie BS, Rees CL, Robins DJ: Wessex feet: a regional foot health survey. Chiropodist 1988, 43:152-165. 34. Clarke M: Trouble With Feet London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd 1969. 35. Garrow AP, Silman AJ, Macfarlane GJ: The Cheshire Foot Pain and Disability Survey: a population survey assessing prevalence and associations. Pain 2004, 110:378-384. 36. Maclennan R: Prevalence of hallux valgus in a neolithic New Guinea population. Lancet 1966, 1:1398-1400. 37. Marr S, Berry G, Wood G, Stevenson M, Cole J: Foot and boot problems of miners working underground. J Occup Health Saf Aust NZ 1998, 14:255-257. 38. Nancarrow SA: Reported rates of foot problems in rural south-east Queensland. Australasian J Podiatric Med 1999, 33:45-50. 39. Shine IB: Incidence of Hallux Valgus in a Partially Shoe-Wearing Community. Br Med J 1965, 1:1648-1650. 40. Chaiwanichsiri D, Janchai S, Tantisiriwat N: Foot disorders and falls in older persons. Gerontology 2009, 55:296-302. 41. Menz HB, Morris ME: Clinical determinants of plantar forces and pressures during walking in older people. Gait Posture 2006, 24:229-236. 42. Menz HB, Zammit GV, Munteanu SE: Plantar pressures are higher under callused regions of the foot in older people. Clin Exp Dermatol 2007, 32:375-380. 43. Scott G, Menz HB, Newcombe L: Age-related differences in foot structure and function. Gait Posture 2007, 26:68-75. 44. Keegan THM, Kelsey JL, Sidney S, Quesenberry CP Jr: Foot problems as risk factors of fractures. Am J Epidemiol 2002, 155:926-931. 45. Al-Abdulwahab SS, Al-Dosry RD: Hallux valgus and preferred shoe types among young healthy Saudi Arabian females. Ann Saudi Med 2000, 20:319-321. 46. Anonymous: An assessment of foot health problems and related health manpower utilization and requirements. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1977, 67:102-114. 47. Badlissi F, Dunn JE, Link CL, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB, Felson DT: Foot musculoskeletal disorders, pain, and foot-related functional limitation in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005, 53:1029-1033. 48. Black JR, Hale WE: Prevalence of foot complaints in the elderly. JAm Podiatr Med Assoc 1987, 77:308-311. 49. Cho NH, Kim S, Kwon DJ, Kim HA: The prevalence of hallux valgus and its association with foot pain and function in a rural Korean community. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91:494-498. 50. Cole AE: Foot inspection of the school child. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1959, 49:446-454. 51. Conrad D: Foot education and screening programs for the elderly. J Gerontol Nurs 1977, 3:11, 14-15. 52. Cramer JS, Forrest K: A survey of deployed foot problems in a desert environment. Mil Med 2008, 173:359-361. 53. Crawford VL, Ashford RL, McPeake B, Stout RW: Conservative podiatric medicine and disability in elderly people. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1995, 85:255-259. 54. Dawson J, Thorogood M, Marks S-A, Juszczak E, Dodd C, Lavis G, Fitzpatrick R: The prevalence of foot problems in older women: a cause for concern. J Public Health Med 2002, 24:77-84. 55. Denvir VJ: A school foot health service after 10 years. Chiropodist 1972, 27:291-301. 56. Dunn JE, Link CL, Felson DT, Crincoli MG, Keysor JJ, McKinlay JB: Prevalence of foot and ankle conditions in a multiethnic community sample of older adults. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 159:491-498. 57. Ebrahim SB, Sainsbury R, Watson S: Foot problems of the elderly: a hospital survey. Br Med J 1981, 283:949-950. 58. Elton PJ, Sanderson SP: A chiropodial survey of elderly persons over 65 years in the community. Public Health 1986, 100:219-222. 59. Emslie M: Prevention of foot deformities in children. Lancet 1939, 234:1260-1263. 60. Enwemeka CS: Physical deformities in Nigerian schools: the Port Harcourt Cohort study. Int J Rehabil Res 1984, 7:163-172. Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 8 of 9 61. Evans SL, Nixon BP, Lee I, Yee D, Mooradian AD: The prevalence and nature of podiatric problems in elderly diabetic patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991, 39:241-245. 62. Frey C, Thompson F, Smith J, Sanders M, Horstman H: American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society women’s shoe survey. Foot Ankle 1993, 14:78-81. 63. Greenberg L: Foot care data from two recent nationwide surveys. A comparative analysis. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1994, 84:365-370. 64. Greenberg L, Davis H: Foot problems in the US. The 1990 National Health Interview Survey. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1993, 83:475-483. 65. Harris RI, Beath T: Army Foot Survey. An investigation of foot ailments in canadian soldiers Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada 1947. 66. Helfand AE: Arthritis in older patients as seen in podiatry practices. A pilot survey by the American College of Foot Orthopedists, 1966. JAm Podiatry Assoc 1967, 57:82-84. 67. Horvath F, Bender G, Sillar P, Lengyel E: Arthrosis of the first foot segment in aged patients. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1980, 118:251-255. 68. Huang ZG, Li Y, Zhang YL, Chi YY, Xu F: Indirect measurement of the foot shape of 319 college students of Han nationality in Liaoning province. Chinese J Clin Rehab 2006, 10:37-40. 69. Hung LK, Ho YF, Leung PC: Survey of foot deformities among 166 geriatric inpatients. Foot Ankle 1985, 5:156-164. 70. Jerosch J, Mamsch H: Deformities and misalignment of feet in children–a field study of 345 students. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1998, 136:215-220. 71. Kemp J, Winkler JT: Problems afoot: need and efficiency in footcare London: Disabled Living Foundation 1984. 72. Kilmartin TE, Barrington RL, Wallace WA: Metatarsus primus varus. A statistical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991, 73:937-940. 73. Leveille SG, Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Hirsch R, Simonsick E, Hochberg MC: Foot pain and disability in older women. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 148:657-665. 74. Levy LA: Prevalence of chronic podiatric conditions in the US. National Health Survey 1990. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1992, 82:221-223. 75. Mahrle DA: Foot Health Survey of a Sample Farming Population of the State of Nebraska. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1965, 55 :450-453. 76. Marr SJ, D’Abrera HJ: Survey of joint mobility and foot problems of 191 Australian children. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1985, 75:597-602. 77. Merrill HE, Frankson J Jr, Tarara EL: Podiatry survey of 1011 nursing home patients in Minnesota. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1967, 57:57-64. 78. Munro BJ, Steele JR: Foot-care awareness. A survey of persons aged 65 years and older. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1998, 88:242-248. 79. Oppel U, Bajer D, Wilke U: Epidemiology and early functional treatment of the hallux valgus in juveniles. Orthopadische Praxis 1984, 20:533-537. 80. Podrushniak EP, Marchenko AE: Static deformities of feet in the process of ageing of man. Ortop Travmatol Protez 1980, 9:31-34. 81. Robinson J: The Aldersgate Study Bedford Park, Australia: Flinders Medical Centre 1989. 82. Saez Aldana F, Martinez Galarreta MV, Martinez-Iniguez Blasco J: Analysis of falls producing hip fracture in the elderly. Rev Ortop Traumatol 1999, 43:99-106. 83. Schank MJ: A survey of the well-elderly: their foot problems, practices and needs. J Gerontol Nurs 1977, 3:10,12-13. 84. Schnitzer JS, Hoeffler DF: The distribution and etiology of foot disorders in a Navy recruit population. J Am Podiatry Assoc 1974, 64:854-853. 85. Smetisko Z: Malposition of feet in the prone position as the exogenous factor in the formation of hallux vagus in adolescents. Arh Zast 1989, 33:311-317. 86. Spahn G, Schiele R, Hell AK, Klinger HM, Jung R, Langlotz A: The prevalence of pain and deformities in the feet of adolescents. Results of a cross-sectional study. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2004, 142:389-396. 87. White EG, Mulley GP: Footcare for very elderly people: a community survey. Age Ageing 1989, 18:276-278. doi:10.1186/1757-1146-3-21 Cite this article as: Nix et al.: Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010 3:21. Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and take full advantage of: • Convenient online submission • Thorough peer review • No space constraints or color figure charges • Immediate publication on acceptance • Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar • Research which is freely available for redistribution Submit your manuscript at www.biomedcentral.com/submit Nix et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010, 3:21 http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/3/1/21 Page 9 of 9 . published systematic review investigating the preva- lence of HV and the influence of age and gender. There- fore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine HV prevalence in the. precise estimate of the prevalence of HV is difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate prevalence of HV in the overall population and evaluate the influence of age and. this article as: Nix et al.: Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2010 3:21. Submit your next manuscript